= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Normal_Anomaly comments on Open Thread, Apr. 13 - Apr. 19, 2015 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (319)
Going through in order:
1 is a confession of bad epistemology,
2 is an assertion with no bad epistemology but a wrong premise,
3 is a generic wrong assertion with a "and that's beautiful" tacked on the front,
4 is a true statement largely independent of religious questions,
5 is good epistemology applied to wrong premises.
Does that engage with what you were asking, or have I misparsed you completely?
Mmm, that might be about right, I'm not clear on a few points.
1 - Is the bad epistemology from an assumption that the teacher here advocates believing in what he calls a mere human tradition (until this manifestation, anyway)?
2 - Do you mean here that the form of the teaching is sound, but that you believe it could never practically apply, because there is not God that you could hold off on "truly knowing" until you met and felt him?
3 - Ah, here, I do believe we have a misunderstanding. My question is if you detect anything wrong with the form of the assertion. If the way of thinking is irrational, rather than the implied belief it's being applied to.
4 - I think your answer here was good, thanks :)
5 - I think you're good here. Just to confirm I'm understanding, you mean that the form of the assertion is rational, but that the specific implied belief accompanying it is false, yes?
Thanks much, I appreciate your brevity.